skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Justice John Paul Stevens, who came to embody the liberal voice on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, announced Friday that he is retiring – giving President Barack Obama his second seat to fill on the nation’s high court."
Politico
No surprise here. Now, let's see what the Republicans are made of. Will they roll over for Obama's new appointment, saying, as they usually do, that, "The President has the right to make the appointment and it just wouldn't be right to stand in his way." Or will they, like the Democrats do time after time, fight the next appointment to the death if it doesn't meet the standards they claim to uphold.
My guess is that the spineless, bought and paid for, Progressive bastards will do the former. I hope I'm wrong.
Funny, but there doesn't appear to be any mention about health care in here. Or any of the other myriad of things that the Congress has used the Commerce Clause to justify.
The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause
Randy E. Barnett
The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"-that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted-when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.
University of Chicago Law Review
H/T The Dana Show
Are we seeing the beginning of the court fighting back against the unconstitutional appropriations of power by the Executive branch. One can only hope; but I won't hold my breath. This seems more personal than constitutional on the part of Judge Roberts.
"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said yesterday that the scene at President Obama's Jan. 27 State of the Union address was "very troubling" and said the annual speech had "degenerated to a political pep rally."
At Obama's address to Congress, he chided the Supreme Court - as six justices sat in the audience - for its decision in a campaign-finance case.
Roberts, replying to a University of Alabama law student's question, said that anyone was free to criticize the court and that some had an obligation to do so because of their positions. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum," he said.
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up. . . cheering and hollering while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," he said.
Roberts said he wondered whether justices should attend the speeches. "I'm not sure why we're there," he said."
Philadelphia Enquirer
Just another reason why I'll never vote Republican again. Note that in this interview Paul claims to have attempted to bring this legislation forward when the Republicans, the "party of life" controlled both Houses and the Presidency but "...I couldn’t get people too interested in it". I'm sure that's because it was perceived as something that would rock the boat; maybe make fund raising for re-election a bit more difficult. So more babies died because it wasn't politically expedient to stand up and protect them, or at the very least try to do something.
So, as far as I'm concerned, a pox on both their houses. I'm voting for the Constitution Party wherever I have the chance. I'm tired of being played for a fool and I'm tired of being party to the murder of innocent children because I supported a party that will do nothing to protect them.
"...I don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to move the courts in that direction, but there is a lot faster way of doing that. And that is to restrict or limit the jurisdiction of the abortion issue from the federal courts. And I have a piece of legislation that would do that where if a Roe v. Wade incident came up again like it did in Texas a long time ago, it could not be heard by the federal courts and the state law then would stand.
That law restricting this jurisdiction can be done by a majority vote in the House and the Senate and the President’s signature. I have worked on that, especially when we had the majority as Republicans – but I couldn’t get people too interested in it. I think we could do it quicker.
It isn’t the perfect solution. The argument I hear against it is “oh, all you’re doing is legalizing abortion in the states.” But if you don’t do something like that, you allow the federal government to stand and legalize it for every single state. I see it as an answer and that doesn’t restrain anybody from trying to amend the Constitution, or waiting to change the Supreme Court. But I think many, many abortions would be prevented, just think if we had passed that back in 1975. You know some states may still have abortions, but there would be a lot of states would not have it. We would have to work within our states, and that, of course, is the way the Constitution is written, and that is the reason I pushed it in that direction."
Life Site News
"The U.S. Supreme Court has said it will hear a case concerning whether the Washington Secretary of State may release the names and addresses of the more than 138,000 people who signed a pro-marriage petition in the state...
...Proponents of Ref. 71 have said that the availability of personal information on the internet has led to the “harassment and intimidation” of those who support traditional marriage. A press release said supporters have been subject to death threats, physical violence, and property damage because of laws requiring the publication of the information on the internet...
...“No citizen should ever worry that they will be threatened or injured because they have exercised their right to engage in the political process.”
Bopp argued that the First Amendment protects citizens from being required to disclose their identity when they are engaged in political speech. He noted that the Supreme Court stayed the release of the names in 2009, saying this indicated the high court recognizes the importance of the case."
Catholic News Agency
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
US Constitution
I suppose that one can make the argument that the First Amendment somehow makes it illegal for a state to release the names of those that sign a petition because fear could be used to abridge or prohibit speech. Of course, even in light of the Fourteenth Amendment one has to wonder how this can be applied to a Secretary of State in Washington since the First Amendment clearly identifies the United States Congress as its intended object.
I support states rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. I also have to be consistent in my beliefs. This is a state issue. If the citizens of Washington disagree with the actions of their Secretary of State then they need to handle this themselves.
Every time we run to the SCOTUS we open the door to more Federal interference in our lives. SCOTUS has vastly overstepped its Constitutional limitations time and time again by legislating from the bench. When we refuse to fight our fights at the state level and instead run to SCOTUS we allow our sovereignty to be eroded even further. We need to keep our family problems in the family; don't allow outsiders in.
Something else needs to be addressed here. I understand that Washington is releasing these names in an attempt to silence those the state disagrees with. The state will use the threat of terror to control you. And this is just the beginning.
If we believe that something is true then we have a moral obligation to stand up for it. The problem is that the obligation comes with no guarantee. We can and most likely will expose ourselves to scorn, ridicule and increasingly real danger by standing up. This is just a fact. If you don't believe me, just read the news. Our governments expect us to go along with the program and be quiet. Even Joe Lieberman, who as a Senator has a lot more power than most of us, saw his wife attacked after his half-assed objection to health control. The people at the top are playing for keeps.
Of course, this has always been the case. We have been lulled into complacency over the last 30 years or so of relative stability in our country. Vietnam was the last time we saw any sort of major social unrest and it wasn't really that bad, at least compared to revolution. Most weren't asked to take a public stand on the issue of the war and so we could all watch it from afar. Things are different this time.
Thomas Payne said, "These are the times that try mens's souls." We've heard this quote a million times. But think about what it means. We are entering a time like the revolution when you will have to choose sides. That choice will come at a price; your soul will be tried. This is because the results of your choice will have real consequence. Pick the wrong side and you may not get a job or you may be ostracized by your friends and family. You may lose your possessions, possibly your freedom and maybe your life. Choices of this magnitude require real soul searching. You need to understand what you believe and why. And, you need to think this through now so that when the choice is offered you have your reply ready.
You also need to make sure that those around you understand why you believe what you do. It is quite possible for your beliefs to cause separation from family and friends. They need to understand why you are doing what you do, just in case you come up missing. I know this sounds crazy but it's not. Just look to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or any number of other dictatorships. This still happens around the world all the time and could happen here, too.
The fact that the people of Washington feel so intimidated by the release of their names causes me some trepidation. If the American people are so weak that this minor threat could cause them to remain silent then we have lost the war before the first battle is over. Americans need to begin the soul searching process now. They need to determine just how far is far enough and they need to be willing to take a stand. If we won't stand strong in the face of the coming storm we will be swallowed by the waves of totalitarianism. By our silence we will have written our obituary. If we refuse to stand slavery is our destiny and the chosen conclusion of the American experiment. We will have proven ourselves unworthy of the freedom we have tossed away.
I guess this is the change that all of those screaming about the abuses of the Bush administration were hoping for when they voted for Obama. Not only is torture acceptable it is to be expected as a normal condition of imprisonment during war. And they went a step further, declaring prisoners non persons. So, if you are declared an enemy combatant (we know that would never be abused) you will effectively be stripped of all rights afforded a human being. You will be considered a non person; just like slaves were before they were granted civil rights and just like babies in the womb today.
So, if you speak out against government activities during a time of war would you be considered an enemy combatant? If so, what stops the government from making you disappear? Does this ruling effectively give the FBI or Secret Service essentially the same powers as the KGB?
Do we even have a "Bill of Rights" any longer? Do we have freedom? Is this still America?"In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., had ruled that government officials were immune from suit because at that time it was unclear whether abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal.
Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.
The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law."
Anti War
Posts
